Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1709-CR-2030 | February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 4

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Timothy J. Burns

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Ellen H. Meilaender

Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Moyad M. Dannon,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

February 2, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A05-1709-CR-2030

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable David Certo, Judge

The Honorable Dylan Vigh, Judge 

Pro Tem

Trial Court Cause No.

49G12-1608-CM-31277

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1709-CR-2030 | February 2, 2018 Page 2 of 4

[1] Moyad Dannon appeals his conviction for conversion, a Class A misdemeanor. 

He claims that the State failed to present sufficient evidence regarding his 

intent.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On the evening of April 26, 2016, Dannon entered the Von Maur store at 

Castleton Mall with his brother and two other men. The group began browsing 

in the men’s concept department, which is a high theft area, and caught the 

attention of Donald Fague, the store’s loss prevention manager. Fague notified 

an associate who then followed the group on the store’s closed-circuit camera 

system.

[4] Dannon and one of his companions approached a table display that included 

white Lacoste baseball hats, which were exactly like the one Dannon was 

wearing except that his was old and dingy. His companion selected one of the 

new hats and discretely pulled off the price tag. Dannon then removed his hat 

from his head, folded it like the new one, and covertly traded it for the new one. 

Dannon placed the new hat on his head, while his companion put the old one 

back on the display table. They then walked away and rejoined the others. As 

the group walked through the store for several more minutes, Dannon stopped 

to look at himself in multiple mirrors while playing with his hair and adjusting 

the hat. He eventually passed all points of payment and left the store with the 

new hat on his head.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1709-CR-2030 | February 2, 2018 Page 3 of 4

[5] Following a bench trial and the court’s review of the store’s surveillance video, 

Dannon was convicted of Class A misdemeanor conversion. On August 8, 

2017, the trial court sentenced him to 180 days in jail and suspended the entire 

sentence. The court placed Dannon on nonreporting probation, which would 

terminate upon successful completion of a theft class. 

Discussion & Decision

[6] On appeal, Dannon argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to 

support his conviction. Dannon does not dispute that he exerted unauthorized 

control over the store’s hat. Relying on his own testimony, Dannon claims 

only that he did not knowingly or intentionally do so because he believed the 

hat was his own. In other words, Dannon claims that he mistakenly confused 

the two hats and wore the wrong one out of the store.

[7] When we consider a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither 

reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. Suggs v. State, 

51 N.E.3d 1190, 1193 (Ind. 2016). Instead, we consider only the evidence and 

reasonable inferences supporting the conviction. Id. We will affirm if there is 

probative evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the 

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[8] We reject Dannon’s blatant invitation to reweigh the evidence and to judge his 

credibility. The State presented ample evidence to establish that Dannon 

knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over Von Maur’s 

property when he wore the hat out of the store. See Ind. Code § 35-43-4-3(a) 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1709-CR-2030 | February 2, 2018 Page 4 of 4

(defining Class A misdemeanor conversion). The surveillance video shows the 

surreptitious behavior of both Dannon and his companion, who removed the 

price tag. Notably, Dannon took off his old, stained hat, folded it like the new 

one, and then carefully and secretly exchanged his hat for the new one. 

Thereafter, on more than one occasion, Dannon looked at himself in a mirror 

and adjusted the unstained, brand new hat on his head before leaving the store 

without paying for it.

[9] Dannon’s intent to exert unauthorized control over the hat can be reasonably 

inferred from the video evidence, and the trial court was not required to credit

Dannon’s contrary testimony. See Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 755-56 (Ind. 

2015) (it is the trier of fact’s role to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to 

decide whether to believe or disbelieve witnesses). Indeed, the trial court 

indicated that it reviewed the video several times and that it “felt the video was 

dispositive of the issue.” Transcript at 69. We agree with the trial court.

[10] Judgment affirmed.

May, J. and Vaidik, C.J., concur.